United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3069

___________ Arnold R. Huskey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. P. W. Keohane, Warden, United States * Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 26, 1997 Filed: January 6, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In 1978, Arnold Huskey was sentenced by a federal court to a twenty-year pri son term for kidnapping. He escaped from prison in 1984 and committed murder i n Oregon. An Oregon court sentenced him to life imprisonment, to be serve d consecutively to the federal sentence. In 1985, a federal court sentenced Huskey for the escape to a five-year prison term, running consecutively to the first fe deral sentence. In 1988, Huskey pleaded guilty to committing mail fraud in 1985 and 1986, and a federal court sentenced him to a consecutive five-year term. Pursuant to Oregon & s law, Huskey & s state sentence began running concurrently with his federal sentences in 1991.The Honora ble Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1 Distri ctof Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorabl e James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western Distric t of Missouri. Section 4161 was repealed as of November 1, 1987, but it remained in effect 2 for five years thereafter as to an individual who committed an offense befor e November 1, 1987, and thus it applies to Huskey. SeeSentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, §§ 218(a)(4), 235(b)(1)(B), 98 Stat. 2027 (1984). -2- The Bureau of Priso ns (BOP) later aggregated Huskey & s three federal sentences. Huskey challenged the aggregation of his mail-fraud sentence in two similar petitions for writ of mandamus. The District Court consolidated the cases, construed the petitions 1
as 28 U.S. C. § 2241 petitions, and dismissed them without prejudice, finding tha t Huskey & s claims lacked merit. On appeal, Huskey seeks to prevent the BOP fro m aggregating his mail-fraud sentence with his other two federal sentences. He also has filed a motion to strike the government’s brief and a motion requesting an expedite d appeal. We deny those motions, and affirm the District Court & s judgment.
As Huskey is challenging the execution of his sentence, the District Cour t correctly construed his petitions as § 22 41 petitions. See Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh , 864 F.2d 804, 808-10 & n.4 (D .C. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (holding § 2241 was exclusive r e medy for claim that authorities failed to properly aggregate consecutive sentences in determining parole eligibility, and noting efficacy of habeas precludes mandamus).
Becaus e the Oregon sentence is running concurrently with Huskey & s aggregated federal sentence, aggregation gives him maximum credit toward service of all hi s sentenc es. Contrary to Huskey & s argument, the BOP had authority to aggregate hi s consecutive federal sentences. See 18 U.S.C. § 4161 (repealed effe ctive Nov. 1, 1987); 2 Briest v. United States Bureau of Prisons , 459 F.2d 284, 285-86 (8th Cir. 1972) (pe r curiam) (no ting under § 4161, consecutive sentences are treated as single term fo r computing good-time credit; finding BOP had authority to aggregate consecutive prison terms). Aggregating consecutive sentences allows inmates to accumulate statutory-3-

good time at the highest rate. See Briest , 459 F.2d at 286. Furthermore, Huskey may not complai n about the order in which he is to serve his sentences. See Jeter v

. Keohane , 739 F.2d 257, 258 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (stating whether individua l should be in federal or state custody is dispute between two sovereigns, and violator of laws of two sovereigns may not complain about order of serving sentences). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.